• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Souter to retire

Justice David Souter announces retirement after current term

Via Politico breaking news, according to his wiki he is one of the more liberal members so Im not too worried.
 
Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me though, because souter is a liberal and OBama will just appoint another liberal, court makeup aint changing!

Well it is a somewhat big deal for two reasons. The most immediate is the opportunity this presents Obama to command more stage-time. He's going to announce his nominee with much fanfare... it will all be highly staged and the press corps will eat it up. Expect a quick and easy confirmation. Any grillings or concerns of GOP members will be ignored or mocked by the MSM. This will be more all-Obama-all-the-time coverage. He'll make the most of it.

Second, Souter may side with the liberal four... but expect Obama's nominee to be much further to the left. As far left as possible. He may not be in as strong a position two or three years from now. He's got to push the envelope now.

..
 
This is excellent!

The American people can get a good view of Obama's standing by his choice here. He ran on the "change" platform, and that he'd bring the country together. When he nominates someone to the left of Ruth Bader...

Now maybe she can retire too.
 
This is sad and sick wanting anyone dead.

That is the uber-tolerant, compassionate, bi-partisan, open minded Liberal for you.

A little glimpse into the "Change, Hope, and Unity" The Obamatrons would like to see and how they wish for it to be achieved.

Now if they had only spoken about the terrorist enemies this way when Bush was President... but "No, no, no..."

.
 
Last edited:
This announcement and Specter's party change just couldn't be coincidence, could they? :roll:
 
I got a memo via panther...

I'm your next Justice. Recognize before I have to Regulate.
 
The question that will never be asked...

"Mr President... as a member of the Senate, you took part in the filibuster of the confirmation of Justice Alito, even though you knew it would fail. How can you now criticize Republicans in their effort to filibuster your nominee?"
 
This is excellent!

The American people can get a good view of Obama's standing by his choice here. He ran on the "change" platform, and that he'd bring the country together. When he nominates someone to the left of Ruth Bader...

Now maybe she can retire too.


That would be necessary to counter the ultra-right appointees of GWB.

However, I suspect that since Obama is really only a "liberal" in the sense of the attempts of the far-right to paint him as such, he will most likely nominate a left-leaning middle of the road person.
Although, I can hope that he would nominate a true liberal, which we haven't had on the court for quite sometime now.
 
Last edited:
This is sad and sick wanting anyone dead.

It's the lunatic left again. ;)

Souter retiring doesn't mean much. We will be trading one leftist for another. No news here.
 
The question that will never be asked...

"Mr President... as a member of the Senate, you took part in the filibuster of the confirmation of Justice Alito, even though you knew it would fail. How can you now criticize Republicans in their effort to filibuster your nominee?"
RESPONSE: "I won, I'm in charge." :roll:
 
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire : NPR

Check it out! Looks like he's retiring.

Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me though, because souter is a liberal and OBama will just appoint another liberal, court makeup aint changing!

The only BIG deal to me is his timing and age. He still has a good 15 to 20 years left.

Here's a Justice who was nominated by Bush Sr. as a conservative, turns out to be a flaming Liberal, thanks George, then to slap the face that nominated him further, waits until after a Liberal Democrat takes office to retire rather than let the son of Bush nominate a REAL conservative interested in the proper role of the Judicial branch of interpreting law instead of activist creation of law from the bench.

My two BIGGEST criticisms of BOTH Bush’s is their naïve notions that one can work WITH Liberals and reach across the aisle to them. In BOTH cases this idiotic belief cost them dearly politically.
 
That would be necessary to counter the ultra-right appointees of GWB.

However, I suspect that since Obama is really only a "liberal" in the sense of the attempts of the far-right to paint him as such, he will most likely nominate a left-leaning middle of the road person.
Although, I can hope that he would nominate a true liberal, which we haven't had on the court for quite sometime now.

For those who may be confused by the Liberal definition of "ultra right" here is what they really mean when they make such inane statements; someone who is willing to correctly interpret the Constitution rather than CREATE legal precedent from the Bench.

:2wave:
 
It is official, Souter turned in his letter of resignation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090501/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_souter_retiring

I have to say that I respect Obama for the way he handled this. He held his comments until getting the official word from Souter. This prevented the White House from overshadowing Souter's announcment. Not that Souter would have cared, he has always seemed like a person who kept to himself anyway.

I actually thought we would hear retirement news from Ginsburg or Stevens first, even Kennedy and Scalia before Souter. I guess we still have plenty of time for more retirement anouncements before this term is done.
 
The only BIG deal to me is his timing and age. He still has a good 15 to 20 years left.

Here's a Justice who was nominated by Bush Sr. as a conservative, turns out to be a flaming Liberal, thanks George, then to slap the face that nominated him further, waits until after a Liberal Democrat takes office to retire rather than let the son of Bush nominate a REAL conservative interested in the proper role of the Judicial branch of interpreting law instead of activist creation of law from the bench.

My two BIGGEST criticisms of BOTH Bush’s is their naïve notions that one can work WITH Liberals and reach across the aisle to them. In BOTH cases this idiotic belief cost them dearly politically.

Spoken like a true open minded right-winger.

Gotta love right-winger attitudes about those they disagree with.
 
The only BIG deal to me is his timing and age. He still has a good 15 to 20 years left.

Here's a Justice who was nominated by Bush Sr. as a conservative, turns out to be a flaming Liberal, thanks George, then to slap the face that nominated him further, waits until after a Liberal Democrat takes office to retire rather than let the son of Bush nominate a REAL conservative interested in the proper role of the Judicial branch of interpreting law instead of activist creation of law from the bench.

My two BIGGEST criticisms of BOTH Bush’s is their naïve notions that one can work WITH Liberals and reach across the aisle to them. In BOTH cases this idiotic belief cost them dearly politically.

Republicans were well aware of Souter's judicial philosophy when they confirmed him to the Court. Here are some quotes from Souter during his confirmation hearing.

"I believe that the due process clause of the 14th amendment does recognize and does protect an unenumerated right of privacy." p. 54

"So, it seems to me that the starting point for anyone who reads the Constitution seriously is that there is a concept of limited governmental power which is not simply to be identified with the enumeration of those specific rights or specifically defined rights that were later embodied in the bill." p. 55

"I do not believe that the appropriate criterion of constitutional meaning is this sense of specific intent, that you may never apply a provision to any subject except the subject specifically intended by the people who adopted it." p. 129

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh101-1263/browse.html

These are just some of the quotes that Souter made to express his judical philosophy, there are plenty more. He was clearly not a justice in line with "original intent." The Republicans in the Senate at the time knew it and they confirmed him anyway on a vote of 90-9.
 
Spoken like a true open minded right-winger.

Gotta love right-winger attitudes about those they disagree with.

Boy, if this isn't the definition of irony and the old pot calling the kettle black, nothing is.

:2wave:
 
Republicans were well aware of Souter's judicial philosophy when they confirmed him to the Court. Here are some quotes from Souter during his confirmation hearing.

"I believe that the due process clause of the 14th amendment does recognize and does protect an unenumerated right of privacy." p. 54

"So, it seems to me that the starting point for anyone who reads the Constitution seriously is that there is a concept of limited governmental power which is not simply to be identified with the enumeration of those specific rights or specifically defined rights that were later embodied in the bill." p. 55

"I do not believe that the appropriate criterion of constitutional meaning is this sense of specific intent, that you may never apply a provision to any subject except the subject specifically intended by the people who adopted it." p. 129

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. Hrg. 101-1263, Nomination of Stephen G. Breyer to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

These are just some of the quotes that Souter made to express his judical philosophy, there are plenty more. He was clearly not a justice in line with "original intent." The Republicans in the Senate at the time knew it and they confirmed him anyway on a vote of 90-9.

I never suggested that they didn't know of Souter's judicial philosophy.

It raises the question; then why would Republicans nominate or approve someone like Souter? Perhaps they wanted to appear unbiased and fair minded?
 
Boy, if this isn't the definition of irony and the old pot calling the kettle black, nothing is.

:2wave:

Man you have a short memory.....:2rofll:
I cut and pasted your words.....see post #17

Talk about the definition of irony :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom